SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
SWATANTER KUMAR, MADAN B.LOKUR
Commissioner of Income Tax – Appellant
Versus
Auto Lamps Ltd. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

SWATANTER KUMAR, J.

1. The assessee filed the return declaring loss of Rs.9,62,033/- for the assessment year 2001-02 on 31.10.2001. The authorities took up the case of the Petitioner for scrutiny under Section 143(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') and served a notice upon the assessee. The assessee was duly represented during the assessment proceedings in which the assessee filed a revised return along with a copy of the challan. In the covering letter, the assessee stated that the amounts were mentioned in the Audit Report but the same had not been paid. However, due to oversight the same was overlooked. Vide assessment order dated 6.2.2003 the Assessing Officer declined to accept the contention of the assessee and noticed that the assessee company had made provisions of Rs.10,56,540/- on account of PF, Pension Fund, EFIC and Bonus but did not make the payments nor added back the same in its income in terms of Section 43(B) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, he directed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in furnishing inaccurate particulars of income have been initiated separately and held that the declared inco

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top